4 ms·
IPCC Scientist's Nobel Moment: No developing catastrophe nor human activity cause
- ggrot 19y agoThe conclusion as I understand it is: Since reversing climate change is a hard and expensive process, we should give up trying.
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago"...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see..."
- timr 19y agoI'm confused....is the conclusion that we should listen to the one dissenting scientist in ten thousand because he gets a few column inches in the Wall Street Journal?
- DanielBMarkham 19y agoFrom a scientific standpoint, we shouldn't listen to one scientist any more than we should listen to a thousand of them. Science is about models and reproducible experiments. Not consensus. Since this was an op-ed and not a description of a model or an experiment, it's about opinion and politics. I believe the conclusion is that some scientists have different opinions and political views than others, right?
- timr 19y agoIndeed. 99.99% of the world's scientists, based on careful interpretation of many thousands of peer-reviewed studies, agree that global warming is real, and is caused by human activity. A vanishingly small handful of scientists happen to disagree with this assessment, based mostly upon their opinion and politics.
- DanielBMarkham 19y agoRepeat after me: model and reproducible experiment, model and reproducible experiment. All science is provisional and must maintain falsifiability for it to be called science. Statements about how many scientists believe any thing, from phrenology to aether to gravity, is an interesting observation about the current opinions and politics of those who practice science. It is not science itself.
- timr 19y agoThousands of peer-reviewed studies (that means models and experiments) have come to the conclusion that global warming is real, and is caused by human activity. It may be "interesting" that one guy in Alabama disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, but it's certainly no more interesting than the members of the flat earth society, or my great uncle Fred, who happens to think that radio waves cause cancer.
- DanielBMarkham 19y agoYou said you were confused about the point of the article. I believe I have explained the purpose of op-eds. Now I believe you are trying get into a discussion about global warming. My suggestion is that if you are still confused, the topic of your confusion should be "why op-eds about my pet causes bother my sensibilities" I'm afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I'm not trying to be a flip with you, it just seems your initial post was not as clear as it could have been. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would like to argue global warming with you. I am not one of them.
- timr 19y agoThe only "pet cause" that I have, is to debunk the notion that outsider opinions in science should be given consideration because they are in the minority. I'm sorry if you were confused by my use of rhetoric. However, it gave you a chance to lecture me on the properties of science ("models and experiments"), so perhaps it wasn't time wasted?
- anamax 19y agoThe economic argument from the AGW advocates (Stern report) is that we should spend $100 today to avoid spending $95 (or less) in the future.
- jey 19y agoWhy or how is it going to get cheaper to deal with if we procrastinate?
- anamax 19y agoThe "cures" are frightfully expensive. The mitigations and costs are less so. (The "cures" do get less expensive as technology develops, but Stern didn't include that factor.) Read the Stern report. Notice the discount rate. (Stern does argue that it's appropriate to spend $100 now to avoid spending $95 in the future.) Or, maybe you want to argue that Stern is wrong about the economics. I think that he is, but not in a way that strengthens his conclusion that we should apply the cures now. (Yup - he's an AGW advocate and a commonly cited source for the economic argument.)